when you can’t win according to the rules, throw a tantrum and change the rules…

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes i referred to horrible judicial
mistakes. to those who think babies in the womb are human beings, roe v wade is right there.

again, the impact on gubernatorial races has zero bearing on whether or not roe was decided on the constitutional merits, or whether it was judicial activism, which judges ( who aren’t elected and therefore aren’t accountable to citizens) have zero business ever engaging in. ever.

have there been 50-60 million abortions in the us since roe? again, look at that through the lens of a hime who (1) thinks those are human beings, and who (2) thinks it was a horribly decided case.

this is the issue liberals are most dishonest on. they paint pro life as anti women. liberals never say that we have empathy for the unborn, no no, we want to enslave women. they know that an honest discussion of what each side believes, makes them look very very ugly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, quite simply you want to impose your religious beliefs on others

Sotomayor: “the issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers, and it’s still debated by religions. That’s a religions issue, isn’t it?” DING DING DING

In Judaism, the fetus is regarded as part of the pregnant person’s body until birth. This is a 1A issue.

In Catholic history, the definition of at what point abortion is a sin has changed in both directions over the history of the Church.

History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong).

A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God's law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, quite simply you want to impose your religious beliefs on others

Sotomayor: “the issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers, and it’s still debated by religions. That’s a religions issue, isn’t it?” DING DING DING

In Judaism, the fetus is regarded as part of the pregnant person’s body until birth. This is a 1A issue.

In Catholic history, the definition of at what point abortion is a sin has changed in both directions over the history of the Church.

History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong).

A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God's law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

has nothing to do with religion. i’ve been opposed to infanticide longer than i’ve been catholic.

if the baby is a person, then abortion is murder. therefore, that’s literally the only issue surrounding abortion. nothing else matters. every other aspect of the debate is a meaningless distraction. because if that baby is human, abortion is infanticide. this is why liberals will do anything to avoid discussing this detail, when it’s really all that matters. so it’s not just a religious question that has no place in setting policy. it’s vital.

that was a weak argument even for you.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

has nothing to do with religion. i’ve been opposed to infanticide longer than i’ve been catholic.

if the baby is a person, then abortion is murder. therefore, that’s literally the only issue surrounding abortion. nothing else matters. every other aspect of the debate is a meaningless distraction. because if that baby is human, abortion is infanticide. this is why liberals will do anything to avoid discussing this detail, when it’s really all that matters. so it’s not just a religious question that has no place in setting policy. it’s vital.

that was a weak argument even for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As a woman said:
That is why I have maintained my "save the zygote if you want after removing it" stance. If life begins at conception, carefully remove it from my body, and place it in an incubator. Good luck in its survival
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As a woman said:
That is why I have maintained my "save the zygote if you want after removing it" stance. If life begins at conception, carefully remove it from my body, and place it in an incubator. Good luck in its survival
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s one argument it’s a very self centered, sick argument in my opinion.

would that woman be ok with abortion bans after viability then?

i know you don’t like
answering questions, but here goes…when would you consider it a human being?

the developing baby is the same one day as it is the next. so unless you say life begins at conception, it seems illogical
and arbitrary to pick some random date and say life begins here. doesn’t make sense to me. curious to know your answer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device